Star Wars, Star Trek
- Thread starter Sirch.Cajnos
- Start date
Basically, they separate down into this.
Star Trek (besides Shatner, he doesn't exist), is all about scientific exploration and inter-species politics intermixed with some.. okay, badly done CGI. The movies were okay, but its one of those things in which: "You would have had to watch the series to understand the events leading up to the movies, or the plots in general" Overall. I agree as well, the TNG series was a little.. easy to predict, but the science that goes into it is still interesting to ponder, even if (right now) fictional. Patrick Stewart is epic.
Star Wars, is all about Lucas' ego, and making a series for the more sci-fi action-y types. Black and white morality with lightsabers, giant alien monsters, and The Force (Most awesome fictional "force" ever). Jedi are as annoying as hell, Sith are mini Hitlers. Hayden Christansen is a bad actor whom plays the main character, Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon kicked ass, Portman was okay. Sci-fi vs. Action? The former not so much.
Its really a matter a taste.
Star Trek (besides Shatner, he doesn't exist), is all about scientific exploration and inter-species politics intermixed with some.. okay, badly done CGI. The movies were okay, but its one of those things in which: "You would have had to watch the series to understand the events leading up to the movies, or the plots in general" Overall. I agree as well, the TNG series was a little.. easy to predict, but the science that goes into it is still interesting to ponder, even if (right now) fictional. Patrick Stewart is epic.
Star Wars, is all about Lucas' ego, and making a series for the more sci-fi action-y types. Black and white morality with lightsabers, giant alien monsters, and The Force (Most awesome fictional "force" ever). Jedi are as annoying as hell, Sith are mini Hitlers. Hayden Christansen is a bad actor whom plays the main character, Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon kicked ass, Portman was okay. Sci-fi vs. Action? The former not so much.
Its really a matter a taste.
I've never seen Star Trek except for the recent movie, and I've been a Star Wars fan for a while even though I'm not to fond of the direction SW is currently going in.
I guess the pro with Star Trek is its creator isn't alive to commit franchisicide, and its in the hands of fans who know what they want. Star Wars on the other hand is being run into the ground by George Lucas.
I guess the pro with Star Trek is its creator isn't alive to commit franchisicide, and its in the hands of fans who know what they want. Star Wars on the other hand is being run into the ground by George Lucas.
I grew up on TNG. My Mum has a weird thing for Patrick Stewart, and I think that must of rubbed off on me because I do too.
Yeah, I love Star Trek, but liking it IS pretty indefensible.Woodsey said:
>.> I've only watched some of the original Star Trek and of Next Gen. The rest, to me, are utter shit. If I can't fangirl over someone, then it is no fun! xD Didn't the original creator die at some point? Seems if they live they fuck their stuff up (or someone else does for them).
Star Wars is kinda... meh. George Lucas should've died before creating anything more than the original 3.
Star Wars is kinda... meh. George Lucas should've died before creating anything more than the original 3.
Star Wars is a much less deep and pop-corn audience friendly series
Whereas Trek (especially while the Enterprise was under Captain Piccard's command) ends up being more of a "hardcore" sci-fi show with political, social and philosophical commentary, though the Captain Kirk era can probably be seen as a more mainstream friendly one as well
Basically, you don't need a lot of sci-fi culture to enjoy Star Wars (mostly because the original trilogy was a re-telling of the Story of Jesus/King Arthur/Gilgamesh/etc. with laser swords and a big coating of "Space Age" theme) and you might need some to enjoy Star Trek (though it depends on what season of the show or what movie)
Whereas Trek (especially while the Enterprise was under Captain Piccard's command) ends up being more of a "hardcore" sci-fi show with political, social and philosophical commentary, though the Captain Kirk era can probably be seen as a more mainstream friendly one as well
Basically, you don't need a lot of sci-fi culture to enjoy Star Wars (mostly because the original trilogy was a re-telling of the Story of Jesus/King Arthur/Gilgamesh/etc. with laser swords and a big coating of "Space Age" theme) and you might need some to enjoy Star Trek (though it depends on what season of the show or what movie)
My geekiness has always been more fantasy orientated, as such I prefer the mythology steeped Wars to the more technology-based Trek.
Star Wars is totally freaking awesome
The original Star Trek with James T Kirk was good....the new series you ask? yeah that aint so good
The original Star Trek with James T Kirk was good....the new series you ask? yeah that aint so good
While comparing Star Wars to Star Trek is tempting considering both are long-running franchises with spaceships, it is like comparing apples to long division when you get down to brass tacks. Any commonality they might have is what they would both have with any story. In other words, comparing Star Wars to Star Trek is like comparing Star Wars to Titanic.
SIDE NOTE: On which Trek films are worth watching, of the original six there are two ways to watch it. There's the "trilogy" consisting of 2-4 and following the 'odd numbers suck" rule which would be 2, 4, 6. Both are valid ways to watch several Trek movies.
Star Trek II: the Wrath of Khan is the best film out of the original ten. So if you watch only one, this would be the one to watch.
Star Trek III: the Search For Spock is a weaker entry in the series but necessary as various plot points are covered here and later films would be confusing. It's not a horrible film. It's just not as good as some of the others.
Star Trek IV: the Voyage Home is kind of an odd duck as it's basically a time travel comedy with Star Trek characters. Not that humor was a stranger to the original series ("Trouble With Tribbles," anyone?) It's unique in that there is no central villain and the plot manages to give most of the characters a chance to have the spotlight as they try to deal with the modern day (circa 1986). It is probably the most mainstream Star Trek movie because of this.
Star Trek VI: the Undiscovered Country is basically a whodunnit in space. It's not quite the waste of major events or themes of Star Trek III, but it's not up to the level of Star Trek II. But as the final voyage of the original crew, it is enjoyable fare.
I skipped Star Trek: the Motion Picture and Star Trek V: the Final Frontier because these movies, in a word, suck and should only be watched by fans. If you try watching I or IV and become a Star Trek fan and simply cannot get enough, then give these movies a shot, and only give V a shot if you really, really need a Trek fix.
Star Trek: the Motion Picture suffers for several reasons. One, it was the late 70's so the uniform redesign is awful. Words can't do it justice. Two, well the story in general has multi-faceted problems. It's padded out from a television script for a failed Trek series. It might have worked for an hour with commercial breaks, but not for two hours. Besides, the basic concept was already done in the original series episode "The Changeling." As such, I can only recommend it to people with a great deal of patience as the film is not nicknamed "Star Trek: the Slow Motion Picture" for nothing. But it's not a total loss. The conflict between Admiral Kirk and Commander Decker works even though it has no real payoff. Just most of the film has nothing going on and much of the stuff that does happen winds up being a dead end. So I can only recommend it to devoted Star Trek fans. But if you are a devote Star Trek fan, you've probably seen it already.
Star trek V: the Final Frontier probably needs no explanation as even people who have never seen anything Star Trek have heard that this one is really, really bad. And it is bad. The main problem is it was a vanity project by Shatner as a love letter to his character. However, in order to make Kirk look good, he wound up making everyone else look stupid. Couple this with the plot he had in mind-- the search for god--- and the studio's decree that it should be a comedy like part IV which was the highest grossing in the series at the time. These two ideas did not mesh together well. The end result is a film that's just all over the place and doesn't seem to say anything and what little it does say is incredibly stupid. So, I can't really recommend this one to even Trek fans since it is such a failure and it takes liberties with the series conventions that I don't think any Star Trek fan would appreciate.
As for the Next generation films, I say skip them. I only watched them up to Star Trek: First Contact which I'm told was the last good one as last two films have both gotten a consensual thumbs down, and I hated First Contact. I thought it was stupid and I remain baffled that it is considered good by anyone.
These, of course are just my opinions on the Star Trek film series. Don't just take my word for it.
SIDE NOTE: On which Trek films are worth watching, of the original six there are two ways to watch it. There's the "trilogy" consisting of 2-4 and following the 'odd numbers suck" rule which would be 2, 4, 6. Both are valid ways to watch several Trek movies.
Star Trek II: the Wrath of Khan is the best film out of the original ten. So if you watch only one, this would be the one to watch.
Star Trek III: the Search For Spock is a weaker entry in the series but necessary as various plot points are covered here and later films would be confusing. It's not a horrible film. It's just not as good as some of the others.
Star Trek IV: the Voyage Home is kind of an odd duck as it's basically a time travel comedy with Star Trek characters. Not that humor was a stranger to the original series ("Trouble With Tribbles," anyone?) It's unique in that there is no central villain and the plot manages to give most of the characters a chance to have the spotlight as they try to deal with the modern day (circa 1986). It is probably the most mainstream Star Trek movie because of this.
Star Trek VI: the Undiscovered Country is basically a whodunnit in space. It's not quite the waste of major events or themes of Star Trek III, but it's not up to the level of Star Trek II. But as the final voyage of the original crew, it is enjoyable fare.
I skipped Star Trek: the Motion Picture and Star Trek V: the Final Frontier because these movies, in a word, suck and should only be watched by fans. If you try watching I or IV and become a Star Trek fan and simply cannot get enough, then give these movies a shot, and only give V a shot if you really, really need a Trek fix.
Star Trek: the Motion Picture suffers for several reasons. One, it was the late 70's so the uniform redesign is awful. Words can't do it justice. Two, well the story in general has multi-faceted problems. It's padded out from a television script for a failed Trek series. It might have worked for an hour with commercial breaks, but not for two hours. Besides, the basic concept was already done in the original series episode "The Changeling." As such, I can only recommend it to people with a great deal of patience as the film is not nicknamed "Star Trek: the Slow Motion Picture" for nothing. But it's not a total loss. The conflict between Admiral Kirk and Commander Decker works even though it has no real payoff. Just most of the film has nothing going on and much of the stuff that does happen winds up being a dead end. So I can only recommend it to devoted Star Trek fans. But if you are a devote Star Trek fan, you've probably seen it already.
Star trek V: the Final Frontier probably needs no explanation as even people who have never seen anything Star Trek have heard that this one is really, really bad. And it is bad. The main problem is it was a vanity project by Shatner as a love letter to his character. However, in order to make Kirk look good, he wound up making everyone else look stupid. Couple this with the plot he had in mind-- the search for god--- and the studio's decree that it should be a comedy like part IV which was the highest grossing in the series at the time. These two ideas did not mesh together well. The end result is a film that's just all over the place and doesn't seem to say anything and what little it does say is incredibly stupid. So, I can't really recommend this one to even Trek fans since it is such a failure and it takes liberties with the series conventions that I don't think any Star Trek fan would appreciate.
As for the Next generation films, I say skip them. I only watched them up to Star Trek: First Contact which I'm told was the last good one as last two films have both gotten a consensual thumbs down, and I hated First Contact. I thought it was stupid and I remain baffled that it is considered good by anyone.
These, of course are just my opinions on the Star Trek film series. Don't just take my word for it.
Screw youTube. You can watch the entire original series legally on the CBS website. [http://www.cbs.com/classics/star_trek/]Wardog13 said:
While I do love William Shatner and Sir Patrick Stewart, Star Wars will always be better because of James Earl Jones, Sir Alec Guinness and Harrison Ford. And Admiral Ackbar.
Also Boba Fett is a badass. Tusken Raiders too. Although the Borg are pretty cool, but Darth Vader is better. A true tragic hero.
Also Boba Fett is a badass. Tusken Raiders too. Although the Borg are pretty cool, but Darth Vader is better. A true tragic hero.
First off
[img/]http://xane.gamez-interactive.de/Pub/Pictures/Fun/FlameShield.jpg[/img]
Okay. Now, Star Wars kicked ass Star Trek was only good on occasion
[img/]http://xane.gamez-interactive.de/Pub/Pictures/Fun/FlameShield.jpg[/img]
Okay. Now, Star Wars kicked ass Star Trek was only good on occasion
I hvae only seen a few star trek episodes/films and tbh I think the only way that some one could get into start trek is if they have already been wtaching it from early on becuase if you just jump right into the middle it is all very confuding, btw the star wars films were okay but they are not the best things in the world.
I think that's spot on really.hURR dURR dERP said:
I love 'em both. Depends what mood I'm in as to which I prefer. As a hardcore science fiction reader Star Trek edges it most of the time. Just bought the box set of the first ten films and boy are they great (minus 1 and 5 as explained by the antithesis, and insurrection). The Original Series was always my favourite and the new film has only rekindled my love for the adventures of Kirk and co. Can't wait for Star Trek Online!
I like starwars better in every way than startrek.... Better movies, Better Games, Better Jokes, Better Ripoffs. So bring it on trekkie, I don't need a flame suit or shield..... O and better shit.
